Cited by 254Psychotherapy Techniques and ApplicationsAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesPsychological Treatments and Assessments

Cognitive-behavioral therapy for adolescent depression: a Meta-analytic investigation of changes in effect-size estimates

Open access
KLEIN, JESSE B., JACOBS, RACHEL H., REINECKE, MARK A.·2007·Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry

Abstract

Objective To explicate differences between early and recent meta-analytic estimates of the effects of cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) for adolescent depression.Method Meta-analytic procedures were used to investigate whether methodological characteristics moderated mean effect sizes among 11 randomized, controlled trials of CBT focusing on adolescents meeting diagnostic criteria for unipolar depression.Results Cumulative meta-analyses indicated that effects of CBT have decreased from large effects in early trials, and confidence intervals have become narrower. Effect sizes were significantly smaller among studies that used intent-to-treat analytic strategies, compared CBT to active treatments, were conducted in clinical settings, and featured greater methodological rigor based on CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) criteria. The mean posttreatment effect size of 0.53 was statistically significant.Conclusions Differences in estimates of the efficacy of CBT for depressed adolescents may stem from methodological differences between early and more recent investigations. Overall, results support the effectiveness of CBT for the treatment of adolescent depression.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/chi.0b013e3180592aaa

Cites

45 of 45 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The type of control condition selected in an outcome trial is known to significantly affect the effect size observed.

    “The type of control condition selected in an outcome trial is known to significantly affect the effect size observed (Klein, Jacobs, & Reinecke, 2007).”

    From A randomized controlled trial of strong minds: A school-based mental health program combining acceptance and commitment therapy and positive psychology (2016) · cites this paper as Klein, Jacobs, & Reinecke, 2007

    The Results report significantly different effect sizes for CBT trials using inactive versus active or placebo controls. But the analysis covered 11 trials of CBT for adolescent depression, not outcome trials generally; the Discussion also cautions that overlapping methodological characteristics may confound the moderator findings. The source supports an association in this set of trials, rather than an established general effect of control-condition selection. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The pilot effect size of 0.87 compares favorably with those reported in meta-analysis of clinical trials of standard CBT or antidepressant drugs.

    “This magnitude of change compares favorably with those reported in meta–analysis of clinical trials of standard cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) or antidepressant drugs (TADS; Kratochvil et al., 2006; ADAPT: Wilkinson et al., 2009), as well as reviews by Klein et al. (2007) and Weisz et al. (2006).”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 3rd edition (DSM-III) Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association; 1980. [Google Scholar]

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
KLEIN, J. B., JACOBS, R. H., & REINECKE, M. A.
Affiliations
Northwestern University (US)
Corresponding author
KLEIN, JESSE B.
Venue
Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2007-11
Volume
46
Issue
11
Pages
1403-1413
ISSN
0890-8567 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2074331965
Cited by
254
References
43
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 25 · 2019: 18 · 2018: 16 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 20 · 2015: 19 · 2014: 13 · 2013: 22 · 2012: 10
FWCI
1.59
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
National Institute of Mental Health (F31MH075308)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychotherapy Techniques and Applications
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychological Treatments and Assessments
Keywords
cognitive behavioral therapy, adolescent depression, major depressive disorder, treatment efficacy, effect size heterogeneity, methodological quality, intention-to-treat analysis, clinical trial design
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Major Depressive Disorder, Humans, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Treatment Outcome

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review